NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam4512OpenMr. Michael Rose Technical Secretary for Executive Director Jamaica Bureau of Standards 6 Winchester Road Kingston l0 JAMAICA; Mr. Michael Rose Technical Secretary for Executive Director Jamaica Bureau of Standards 6 Winchester Road Kingston l0 JAMAICA; Dear Mr. Rose: This responds to your letter, addressed to the Directo of the Office of the Federal Register, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the Federal agency which issued and administers that standard. Your questions are addressed below. By way of background information, NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, l5 U.S.C. l38l et seq. The term 'motor vehicle safety standard' is defined by the Act as 'a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, or motor vehicle equipment performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria' (section l02(2)). NHTSA does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, section ll4 of the Act requires manufacturers to certify compliance of each motor vehicle and item of equipment with all applicable standards. The Act requires that manufacturers exercise 'due care' to ensure that their products conform to each applicable standard (section 108(b)(l)). I will address your first two questions together. The questions are: l. In the clause dealing with Test Sample, why are the batch size and sample size not mentioned? 2. Why does the standard make no reference to the frequency of testing. As indicated above, Standard No. 109 is a minimum performance standard. All tires must be capable of meeting the standard's requirements. The purpose of the test sample paragraph (S4.2.2.l) in Standard No. 109 is to indicate that a test set for a compliance test consists of three tires. One tire is checked for physical dimensions and is then subjected to resistance to bead unseating and strength, in sequence. The second tire is subjected to the endurance test, and the third tire is subjected to the high speed test. Paragraph S4.2.2.l is not intended to address the question of how many sets of tires a manufacturer should test as a surveillance procedure during production or what batch size the test sets should be drawn from. A manufacturer is not required to conduct any particular frequency of testing or even to run the actual tests specified by Standard No. 109. Instead, a manufacturer must take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that each of its tires, if tested according to the requirements of the standard, would meet those requirements. (For test purposes, however, any one given tire would only be subjected to one of the three test sequences discussed above.) Since Standard No. 109 includes a number of specific test requirements, it is likely that a manufacturer would find it necessary to do some testing in order to ensure that a tire complied with the standard. For enforcement purposes, NHTSA would test a tire according to the specific test requirements of Standard No. 109. Your third question is as follows: 3. Why does the standard make no reference to tolerances for tyre concentricity? NHTSA's standards cover aspects of performance for which the agency has determined there is a safety need. To date, NHTSA has not determined that there is a need for requirements covering tire concentricity tolerances. We note that tire concentricity appears to be primarily an issue of occupant comfort rather than safety. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0802OpenMr. Rex A. Williams, Ryder System, Incorporated, Post Office Box 816, 2701 South Bayshore Drive, Miami, FL 33133; Mr. Rex A. Williams Ryder System Incorporated Post Office Box 816 2701 South Bayshore Drive Miami FL 33133; Dear Mr. Williams: This is in response to your letter of July 20, 1972, concernin regulations governing the mounting of truck bodies and fifth wheels. Persons who perform these operations on new vehicles are generally considered to be final-stage manufacturers under NHTSA regulations and are required to certify that the completed vehicle conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; The requirements for certification are codified at Title 49, Code o Federal Regulations, Parts 567, 568. Copies of these and other NHTSA requirements are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. The material should be ordered under the title, *Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards*. The cost, which must be prepaid, is $8.00, which includes amendments for one year. Checks should be payable to the Superintendent of Documents. Regulations regarding the Certification of completed motor vehicles are found at Parts 567 and 568 of the volume.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1710OpenHonorable Thomas N. Downing, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Thomas N. Downing House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Downing: This is in response to your letter of November 25, 1974, requestin this agency's comments on correspondence from one of your constituents, Ms. Cathy Alligood, concerning Federal regulations regulating bumper height and tire location.; The NHTSA has promulgated no standards regulating the protrusion o tires outside of the vehicle fenders. There may, however, be a State requirement pertaining to this aspect of performance.; A standard does exist that relates to motor vehicle bumper systems (4 CFR Part 571.215, *Exterior Protection*). According to that standard all vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1973, must possess bumpers which meet a certain level of performance. One aspect of the standard assures a uniform bumper height since the vehicle must be capable of sustaining pendulum impacts (during compliance testing) at certain heights while incurring only limited damage. Bumpers which are located at heights above or below a certain level would not be capable of satisfying these specified damage criteria. We have determined that uniform bumper heights are an essential element to motor vehicle safety.; Responding to the issue raised by Ms. Alligood concerning th alteration of bumper heights, such alteration could occur if the vehicle was not thereby brought out of compliance with the bumper standard. If the alteration of the bumper height caused the vehicle no longer to comply with the standard and such alteration was accomplished by the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or a motor vehicle repair business, a violation of S 108(a) (2) (A) would have occurred. If, however, the alteration was done after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale by someone other than a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, no violation would have occurred.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2995OpenMr. C. J. Goode, Chief Engineer, Leyland Cars, P.O. Box 2, Meteor Works, Lode Lane, Solihull, West Midlands B92 8NW, England; Mr. C. J. Goode Chief Engineer Leyland Cars P.O. Box 2 Meteor Works Lode Lane Solihull West Midlands B92 8NW England; Dear Mr. Goode:#I regret the delay in responding to your July 17, 1978 letter petitioning for reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. You requested that the standard be amended to add three ISO symbols so that British Leyland could adopt common specifications in satisfaction of both FMVSS 101-80 and EEC directive 78/316. Your petition is in effect granted in part and is denied in part.#You asked that the ISO symbol (an illuminated light bulb) for the Master Lighting Switch be either substituted for Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol (an illuminated headlamp) specified in Table 1 of FMVSS 101-80 or added as an option to that specified symbol. This aspect of your petition is denied. If a vehicle contains a master lighting control in addition to a headlamp and tail lamp control, the Master Lighting Switch symbol may be used for the master lighting control. We recognize, however, that most vehicles presently sold in this country have one control that operates all lights, including the headlamps and tail lamps. On vehicles having one control for all lights, the control must be identified by the Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol. We believe that this is appropriate since the headlamps and tail lamps are the most important lights controlled by a master light control. Further, we believe that the Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol is more easily recognized than the Master Lighting Switch symbol.#You also asked that the ISO symbol for the Manual Choke be added to Table 1 and the ISO symbol for the Brake System be added to Table 2. No amendment of the standard is necessary to permit your use of these two symbols since FMVSS 101-80 does not specify any requirements regarding symbols for those items. Amendment of the standard to require the use of those symbols would require a new proposal to be issued since such an amendment would be beyond the scope of the October 12, 1976, proposal which led to the June 26, 1978 final rule. Treating this part of your petition as a petition for rulemaking instead of a petition for reconsideration, we grant it. It should be understood that granting the petition does not necessarily mean that an amendment will ultimately be adopted.#Sincerely, Michael M. Finkelstein, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking; |
|
ID: aiam3687OpenMr. J. N. Uranga, Cummins Engine Company, Inc., Box 3005, Columbus, IN 47201; Mr. J. N. Uranga Cummins Engine Company Inc. Box 3005 Columbus IN 47201; Dear Mr. Uranga: This is in further response to your January 28, 1983, letter in whic you asked about the defect reporting requirements in Part 573, *Defect and Noncompliance Reports*. We responded by letter to you on March 24 indicating that as an original equipment manufacturer you might have some reporting responsibilities if a component of your original equipment was found to be defective.; In a conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff, you have indicate that you manufacture the engine of a certain vehicle and another manufacturer produces the fan. Both pieces of equipment are then sent to the vehicle manufacturer for assembly with the vehicle. In this instance, you ask whether you would have reporting responsibilities if the fan were determined to be defective. The answer to your question is no.; In the situation that you pose, you do not install the fan on you equipment nor does the fan ever come within your control. Therefore, you would not have responsibility for that part. The fan manufacturer and the vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for any defects in that equipment. In instances where you might install a fan on your equipment prior to sale to the vehicle manufacturer, you might have reporting responsibilities if a defect is discovered in that part, since the part would be a component of the overall engine that you supplied to the vehicle manufacturer.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4142OpenFrederick Goldfeder, Esq., Legal Proceedings Bureau, New York Department of Transportation, Albany, New York 12232; Frederick Goldfeder Esq. Legal Proceedings Bureau New York Department of Transportation Albany New York 12232; Dear Mr. Goldfeder: This responds to your January 28, 1986 letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the definition of 'truck' set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.3 of our regulations. You asked whether manufacturers may certify 'passenger vans,' which have seating capacities of more than 10 persons, as trucks.; By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) and NHTSA's certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567), the classification of a motor vehicle is determined by its manufacturer. Part 567 requires manufacturers to certify that their motor vehicles comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, and classify their vehicles in accordance with the definitions set forth in Part 571.3 of our regulations. The agency may, of course, question a manufacturer's classification of its vehicle if it appears that the vehicle has not been properly certified under our regulations. This would generally arise in the context of compliance or enforcement proceedings.; We define a 'truck' in Part 571.3 as 'a motor vehicle ... designe primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' Based on the information in your letter, it does not appear that the vans meet that definition, given their passenger capacities. Our regulatory definition of a truck would be only appropriate for vehicles designed primarily for transporting property or equipment, which does not appear to be the case for the vans you described.; The situation you described appears to raise question of complianc with Federal law by the persons certifying the vehicles. We are interested in learning more about the sale of the vans, and would appreciate your contacting NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance with any information you may have, at the address given above.; Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of furthe assistance.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1340OpenMr. Samuel W. Caverlee, Wilkinson, Carmody & Peatross, Seventeenth Floor Beck Building, Shreveport, LA 71166; Mr. Samuel W. Caverlee Wilkinson Carmody & Peatross Seventeenth Floor Beck Building Shreveport LA 71166; Dear Mr. Caverlee: This is in reply to your letter of November 8, 1973, requestin information on the applicability of NHTSA safety standards and regulations to a company which manufactures for its own use special truck bodies and transfers truck bodies from one chassis-cab to another.; Truck bodies are items of motor vehicle equipment under the Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA regulations and are presently not subject to safety standards or regulations except insofar as they become part of a completed vehicle (49 CFR S 568.3). In such cases the installer of the truck body is considered a manufacturer of the vehicle, and if he is its final-stage manufacturer, he will be responsible for the conformity and certification of conformity of the vehicle (49 CFR Parts 567, 568, 15 U.S.C. 1403) to all applicable safety standards.; The NHTSA applies this rule even when the vehicle is complete (manufactured) by a company (or person) for its own use. This is because the use of these vehicles involves their introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce, and is thus within 15 U.S.C. SS 1397(a)(1), 1398, and 1399. Use restricted to one State does not remove a vehicle from these requirements. However, a subsequent sale by the user-manufacturer does fall within section 1397(b)(1) as long as the manufacturer's use has been *bona fide*.; The agency has taken the position that the standards and regulation apply when the installation of truck bodies and other completive measures are undertaken with new chassis. When the installation or transfer of a truck body (including a new truck body) is to a used chassis, the NHTSA considers the vehicle to be a used vehicle under section 1397(b)(1) and the standards and regulations do not apply.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5303OpenMr. John M. Tolliday President Dayman USA Inc. P.O. Box 824 Bedford, VA 24523; Mr. John M. Tolliday President Dayman USA Inc. P.O. Box 824 Bedford VA 24523; "Dear Mr. Tolliday: We have received your letter of September 2, 1993 with respect to your wish to import 'British Army Ferret Armored Cars'. The armaments have been removed. You would be selling these vehicles 'on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes.' You ask whether the vehicles would be exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed two photos of the machine. For purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a 'motor vehicle' is a vehicle that has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Given the configuration and original military character of the Ferret, we believe that its manufacturer intended that its use of the public roads would be incidental and not primary. Therefore, we have concluded that the Ferret was not a 'motor vehicle' at the time of its manufacture. The question arises whether removal of the Ferret's armament and its importation for civilian use cause it to become a 'motor vehicle' for purposes of our regulations. At first blush, it would appear that the status of a vehicle is permanently determined at the time of its manufacture. This is true with respect to vehicles manufactured and operated exclusively in the United States no matter what modifications are subsequently made. The general provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act do not apply once a domestic vehicle has been sold. As a hypothetical example, the agency does not consider an all-terrain vehicle to have been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, hence it is not a 'motor vehicle'. Were an owner to modify it so that it could be licensed for use, the original intent of the manufacturer would have been superseded by that of the modifier, but the Act does not impose any obligation upon the modifier to conform the all-terrain vehicle to any Federal safety standards that might apply to its type. The situation differs with respect to imported vehicles. The status of a vehicle is judged as of the time of entry. Returning to our all-terrain vehicle hypothetical, if the vehicle has been modified before it enters the United States so that its primary use will be on the public roads, we would regard it as a 'motor vehicle' subject to compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to the Ferret, we believe that more than removal of its armament is required to cause it to become a 'motor vehicle'. The issue of armament is essentially irrelevant to its character as an off-road or on-road vehicle. The Ferret remains an armored vehicle of limited visibility and of no apparent greater utility for on-road civilian purposes such as transportation of passengers and cargo than it possessed before removal of the armament. It retains the same high ground clearance as it has always possessed, supporting your statement that it will be sold for use on the public roads. We therefore conclude that, as modified, the Ferret will not be a 'motor vehicle' subject to our regulations, and that they may be imported without the necessity of conforming them to the Federal standards. Those military vehicles that are manufactured primarily for on-road use are 'motor vehicles'. However, in recognition of the fact that conformance with the Federal safety standards might compromise their ability to fulfill their military mission, the agency has exempted from compliance those motor vehicles that have been manufactured for the armed forces of the United States in accordance with contractual specifications. This exclusion does not apply to foreign military vehicles. Thus, for example, were you seeking to import for resale in the United States trucks of the British Army, they would have to be brought into conformance with applicable truck standards. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0101OpenMr. R. J. Hart, Bugetta Inc., 3037 Enterprise Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626; Mr. R. J. Hart Bugetta Inc. 3037 Enterprise Avenue Costa Mesa CA 92626; Dear Mr. Hart:#With reference to your letter of August 14 and it enclosed specification sheet covering the Bugetta, this vehicle appears to be a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' for purpose of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards since it is constructed with features for occasional off road use.#Your understanding of the applicability of standards to multipurpose passenger vehicles is correct. We concur with your view that compliance with Standard No. 103 (Windshield Defrosting and Defogging) is a meaningless requirement for a vehicle with no top or windows.#Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations; |
|
ID: aiam4841OpenWilliam F. Canever, Esq. Staff Attorney Office of General Counsel Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn, MI 48l2l; William F. Canever Esq. Staff Attorney Office of General Counsel Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 48l2l; "Dear Mr. Canever: This responds to your letter concerning Ford's pla to allocate MY l986 light truck credits to cover MY l985 and MY l989 shortfalls. For each of those model years, manufacturers have the option of complying with separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards or a combined standard. Ford elected to comply with the separate standards for MY l985 and the combined standard for MY l986 and MY l989. The MY l986 credits are applied in the plan on a prorated basis to MY l985. In response to your letter, we have reviewed Ford's credit allocation plan in light of 49 CFR 535.4(e). That section provides, among other things, that '(c)redits may not be applied between classes of light trucks, except as determined by the Administrator to account for changes made in the definitions of classes between model years.' Since Ford's plan involves applying credits earned by exceeding the MY l986 combined standard to shortfalls incurred against the MY l985 separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards, we have considered whether the plan represents a cross-class application of credits that is prohibited by 535.4(e). As discussed below, we have concluded that Ford's allocation plan is not prohibited. In your letter, you suggest that the regulatory scheme creates two methods of complying with light truck CAFE standards and not three classes of light trucks. You also state that the term 'class' is nowhere applied to the combined light truck fleet. You conclude that there is no cross-class application of credits. We do not agree with your suggested analysis. Section 535.3(a)(4) states that the term 'class of light trucks' is used in accordance with the determinations in Part 533 of this chapter. Section 535.4(b) then indicates that credits are earned 'whenever the average fuel economy for a class of light trucks manufactured by a manufacturer exceeds an applicable average fuel economy standard established in Part 533 of this chapter.' The term 'class' in Part 535 thus refers to each possible grouping of light trucks that is averaged together for determining compliance with CAFE standards. Looking at Part 533, there are, in fact, six classes of light trucks for the model years in question: (l) Combined captive import, (2) Combined other, (3) 2-wheel drive captive import, (4) 2-wheel drive other, (5) 4-wheel drive captive import, and (6) 4-wheel drive other. While we do not agree with your suggested analysis, we believe that there is ambiguity with respect to how 535.4(e) applies to the factual sitation at issue. First, Ford's plan involves overlapping classes. Thus, while there is a degree of cross-class application of credits, it is limited. Second, NHTSA has never addressed in rulemaking the issue of whether manufacturers should, in effect, forfeit credits as a result of choosing particular compliance options for particular years. This situation is analagous in some respects to the issue of whether forfeiture of credits should occur where NHTSA changes the definitions of classes between model years. In that situation, the agency decided, based on its understanding of statutory intent, against forfeiture. Third, in a letter dated April 26, l988, NHTSA approved a Ford carryback plan for MY l985 light trucks which set forth Ford's proposed allocation methodology. While the agency did not expressly address that methodology in the letter approving the plan, Ford could have assumed that the agency considered the proposed allocation to be permissible. Given the ambiguity surrounding this issue, NHTSA believes that it is appropriate to decide the issue, for now, in favor of the manufacturer. The agency believes that this is a type of ambiguity that should be resolved, for the future, by rulemaking. However, the issue will become moot, at least for the time being, since, beginning with the MY l992 light truck CAFE standards, NHTSA decided not to set optional separate two-wheel drive and four-wheel drive standards. Should the agency decide to issue optional CAFE standards at some future time, it will address this issue in rulemaking. For now, NHTSA will treat situations where a manufacturer changes compliance options between model years in the same manner as situations where the agency changes the definitions of classes between model years. In both types of situations, NHTSA will follow the policy first announced in a November 8, 1979 notice of interpretation (44 FR 64943), and reaffirmed in a December 18, 1980 Federal Register notice (45 FR 83233), of attempting to assure that credits are applied to offset shortfalls on the same types of vehicles which generated the credits. Ford's plan to apply, on a prorated basis, credits earned by exceeding the MY l986 combined standard to shortfalls incurred against the MY l985 separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards, is consistent with the examples set forth in the November l979 and December l980 notices. Ford's plan then to apply remaining MY l986 credits to its MY l989 shortfall, incurred against the MY l989 combined standard, does not involve any cross-class application of credits. I therefore conclude that Ford's allocation plan is not prohibited. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.